Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Predict Star Collision Visible To The Naked Eye In 2022 (npr.org)

Posted by msmash on from the looking-forward dept.

Scientists predict that a pair of stars in the constellation Cygnus will collide in 2022, give or take a year, creating an explosion in the night sky so bright that it will be visible to the naked eye. From a report on NPR: If it happens, it would be the first time such an event was predicted by scientists. Calvin College professor Larry Molnar and his team said in a statement that two stars are orbiting each other now and "share a common atmosphere, like two peanuts sharing a single shell." They predict those two stars, jointly called KIC 9832227, will eventually "merge and explode ... at which time the star will increase its brightness ten thousand fold becoming one of the brighter stars in the heavens for a time." That extra-bright star is called a red nova. They recently presented their research at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Grapevine, Texas.

76 of 126 comments (clear)

  1. that cant be right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    aren't they really predicting that the light from the stars colliding will reach us in 2022?

    1. Re:that cant be right by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, but since they can't please normal people and pedants, they've gone with the description that both can easily understand.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:that cant be right by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If you really want to be pedantic, at least say "from the stars that collided".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:that cant be right by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      If you want to anal about it they should have said "The light from the stellar collision that happened {Insert distance to collision in Light-years} years ago".

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    4. Re:that cant be right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If the light hasn't reached us, it hasn't happened yet here.

    5. Re:that cant be right by um...+Lucas · · Score: 1

      We view everything in the past and describe it as if we saw it in real time. Only difference is, the light from the tree falling in front of me only took 20 nanoseconds to reach my eyes. Still, I just say "that tree just fell", not "that tree fell 20 nanoseconds ago and I just witnessed it now"

    6. Re:that cant be right by shortscruffydave · · Score: 1

      We view everything in the past and describe it as if we saw it in real time. Only difference is, the light from the tree falling in front of me only took 20 nanoseconds to reach my eyes. Still, I just say "that tree just fell", not "that tree fell 20 nanoseconds ago and I just witnessed it now"

      If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to see it, does it emit photons?

  2. If its visible here in 2022 by rossdee · · Score: 1

    then it must have already happened

    1. Re:If its visible here in 2022 by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not in all reference frames.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:If its visible here in 2022 by Fragnet · · Score: 3, Funny

      It takes zero time for the light from the event to reach us in its frame of reference. According to the photons the event is zero distance away. So I'm not sure it makes any sense to talk about when or where the event happened.

    3. Re:If its visible here in 2022 by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It takes zero time for the light from the event to reach us in its frame of reference. According to the photons the event is zero distance away.

      I interviewed several of the photons tomorrow and they called bullshit on your concept of zero distance.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    4. Re:If its visible here in 2022 by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You're begging for a "your mom is so fat" joke here, hope you're aware of that!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:If its visible here in 2022 by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      Ask a photon next time you see one if you don't believe me.

    6. Re:If its visible here in 2022 by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're begging for a "your mom is so fat" joke here, hope you're aware of that!

      Or is that ``a "your mom is so fat here" joke''?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. Long ago.. by slashkitty · · Score: 2

    While MOST stars you see at night are actually very close, these stars are about 1800 light-years away. So, yeah, the collision happened long ago and we are only soon able to see it.

    --
    -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
    1. Re:Long ago.. by kaizendojo · · Score: 1

      I guess "Scientists are predicting something that already happened" doesn't have the same click power.

    2. Re:Long ago.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...and naturally, slashdot is 1800 years too late on reporting the event :-/

    3. Re:Long ago.. by ancientt · · Score: 1

      Ha!

      --
      B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
    4. Re:Long ago.. by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      ... but "Scientists announcing that there will be a REALLY COOL LIGHT SHOW!" works.

    5. Re:Long ago.. by sh00z · · Score: 1

      Yes, because of comments like yours. Of course it has happened already. We just can't observe it yet due to our distance. Your statement is equivalent to "the event of a tree falling in the forest cannot be considered to have happened until someone sees the trunk on the ground."

  4. Re:"will collide in 2022" by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2

    They collided, or didn't collide, 1,800 years ago ( http://www.vox.com/science-and... )

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  5. Re:"will collide in 2022" by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2

    Actually 1,795 years ago (before a smart ass fixes my post)

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  6. Goddamn scientists by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Goddamn scientists, always predictin' shit and figurin' stuff out.

    Selfish bastards, at this rate there won't be any new discoveries left for the next generation of scientists to make.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:Goddamn scientists by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      what next generation?

      I wandered this too...

    2. Re:Goddamn scientists by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      In an great America again!

    3. Re:Goddamn scientists by ancientt · · Score: 1

      Dude, I know English probably isn't your first language, but that couldn't have been more hilarious if you'd spent your life teaching it. Kudos too for keeping a great sense of humor.

      --
      B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
    4. Re:Goddamn scientists by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      thanks

    5. Re:Goddamn scientists by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Funny how being against preventable diseases makes you a "SJW" (an acronym which has never been used un-ironically by anyone other than odious cunts). Enjoy your russian double-agent president. lol.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  7. Re:"will collide in 2022" by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    I demand precision to the nearest day!

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  8. Here is a much better article about it by Topwiz · · Score: 2

    This one actually explains that the expected explosion occurred sometime in the third century since the star is 1800 light years away. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sci...

    1. Re:Here is a much better article about it by Maritz · · Score: 1

      It seems like roughly half the posts in this thread are people pointing out that light moves at a finite speed. Yeah. We fucking get it. It doesn't fucking matter.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  9. It *can* be right... by Black.Shuck · · Score: 1

    There's no provable or usable mechanism by which we can travel to any part of the Universe faster than the speed of light, so trying to make a distinction between the "light of an event reaching us" vs. "the event being observed as it happens" is semantically meaningless.

    Information can't travel faster than light, and you can't currently get anywhere fast enough to prove otherwise.

    1. Re:It *can* be right... by Wulf2k · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If we send somebody to Mars and are listening to their final screams of agony as they realize there was a conversion error between Metric and Imperial, are they dying right now or have they been dead for 13 minutes?

    2. Re:It *can* be right... by Black.Shuck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a bit late to do something about it in either case, is it not?

    3. Re:It *can* be right... by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      13 minutes

      What's the imperial equivalent unit of time measure?

    4. Re:It *can* be right... by buchner.johannes · · Score: 2

      13 minutes

      What's the imperial equivalent unit of time measure?

      1 tea.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    5. Re:It *can* be right... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      If we send somebody to Mars and are listening to their final screams of agony as they realize there was a conversion error between Metric and Imperial, are they dying right now or have they been dead for 13 minutes?

      Schrodinger's cat scoffs at your scenario.

    6. Re:It *can* be right... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      There's no provable or usable mechanism by which we can travel to any part of the Universe faster than the speed of light, so trying to make a distinction between the "light of an event reaching us" vs. "the event being observed as it happens" is semantically meaningless.

      Information can't travel faster than light, and you can't currently get anywhere fast enough to prove otherwise.

      It's not meaningless at all.

      An astronaut stranded on a planet X distance away has enough power/water/supplies/porno to last Y time (from their perspective).

      If a rescue mission is launched from Earth as soon as the message is received, how fast will it need to travel (average velocity toward the stranded astronaut) to effect rescue?

    7. Re:It *can* be right... by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      According to the Schroedinger's Cat approach, they were dead from the time they set off. Or is it half-dead?

    8. Re:It *can* be right... by Black.Shuck · · Score: 1

      There isn't nearly enough data to answer the question, and whatever data I can dream-up to fill the gaps doesn't solve the problem either.

      We can sit here and watch the astronaut die from afar, but we can't say that they died X light-years ago because the information of the event is propagating at that speed too. To send a rescue craft to reach them just before they perish and then return at light-speed, such events would happen (from our frame-of-reference) over the same duration it would have taken to just watch and do nothing (well, slightly less of course, because they were rescued. :)

      I grant that you can *say* that the event happened Y years/light-years ago. It's good fun, we have a few laughs, and no /. article with "light years" in it is complete without several of us doing so. But when it comes to actual spacetime, and the real job of looking at it, moving around it, and proving the whole damned conjecture in an empirical way from *any* frame of reference; well, we can't bloody do it, and as far as the best science can tell us so far, nobody else can either, which makes the statement utterly vacuous.

      But fun, I guess, and it obviously never gets old.

    9. Re:It *can* be right... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Damn, you're dumb. I really lost it at "we can't say that they died X light-years ago". No, we certainly can't say that.

      If you know distance from the astronaut to Earth and they're using a radio, you know how long ago they sent the transmission from your perspective.
      You'll also know how long it's been from their perspective, to a precision and accuracy that far exceed what you'd to decide if rescue is viable.

    10. Re:It *can* be right... by Black.Shuck · · Score: 1

      Damn, you're dumb. I really lost it at "we can't say that they died X light-years ago". No, we certainly can't say that.

      Damn, you're a nice guy and I like you. Yes, I knew I'd be caught on the "light-years ago" point. I thought the years/light-years phrasing I used later would be back-ported by yourself and the intention correctly inferred. Lesson learned. I'll be explicit next time. I also made a mistake at the start of the 3rd paragraph: Replace *say* with *hypothesise* to get the gist of my meaning.

      Anyway, adding a radio into the mix is pure fluff, and so is the notion of precision. Neither say anything about when it is meaningful to say "Z happened" according to any particular reference frame.

    11. Re:It *can* be right... by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Move far enough from earth and you can follow WW2 radio traffic live and relive Hiroshiima as if you were there.."

      Except, of course, you can't.

      Which is exactly the point.

      On top of that, I can ASSURE you that no, an hypothetical observer far enough to still knowing nothing about Hiroshima won't experience it as the unlucky ones that were in fact there.

    12. Re:It *can* be right... by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Anyway, adding a radio into the mix is pure fluff, and so is the notion of precision. Neither say anything about when it is meaningful to say "Z happened" according to any particular "reference frame.""

      So, say, the astronaut is at Mars and suddenly he says to himself "Damn! I have food for only four (earth) years and I'll starve after that" and then he immediately presses the big red button that will summon the cavalry to the rescue back from Earth.

      Now, on the other hand, our hero is on a planet orbiting Alfa Centaury when the same situation happens.

      Now, tell me again there's anything meaningful to say about when "Z happened" for both scenarios from Earth's particular reference frame.

    13. Re: It *can* be right... by Black.Shuck · · Score: 1

      Darling, the fate of the astronaut in either case has nothing to do with it. The alpha centauri one is going to die before you get there, truly. But you cannot say he is "dead already" from your own reference frame. Well, you can on a /. thread obviously, but it's a philosophical point, not a scientific one.

      You can make the trip to the doomed astronaut, and you can watch him die through your telescope before you get there (however the hell that might look when you're moving at relativistic speeds) but there is absolutely no way for you to *prove* that he has already expired before you left, because there is no mechanism to check the fact.

      "Oh well, but doesn't it just make sense anyway? I mean, he only had food for 4 years, and it took more than that for his message to reach us." Yes, I get what you're trying to say, but it's a philosophical point only, which is another way of saying it's no bloody point at all.

    14. Re: It *can* be right... by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Yes, I get what you're trying to say, but it's a philosophical point only, which is another way of saying it's no bloody point at all."

      It's philosophical only since it obviously is a mind experiment, but it wouldn't be philosophical at all for the astronauts: for the first one the Earth would expend millions and the astronaut would survive; the second one would die alone (without costing a dime) and the difference between both cases would certainly be our knowledge of (special) relativity and what "when" means within its frame.

      Yes: it is "philosophical" what happens out of the light cone of an event; no, it doesn't mean we can't make meaningful assertions about events at relativistic distances/speeds.

  10. It is neither right nor wrong... by SeattleLawGuy · · Score: 2

    Yes, but since they can't please normal people and pedants, they've gone with the description that both can easily understand.

    Exactly. The idea that something 1800 light years away "happened" at time X is kind of meaningless anyway, because our colloquial measurements of time (things like "1800 years ago" or "the third century") are dependent on being stuck in our local gravity well. It's like you get a call from the White House and your kid says "Don't you really mean you got a call from the first floor?"

    Well, sure. The first floor of not-your-house. It's a categorization that doesn't make sense in the context of the real universe.

    --
    Real lawyers write in C++
    1. Re:It is neither right nor wrong... by SeattleLawGuy · · Score: 1

      (OK, not entirely meaningless because it is a measure of time propagation through the universe, but pretty meaningless.)

      --
      Real lawyers write in C++
  11. What Einstein figured out... by number6x · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What Einstein already figured out is that as you approach the speed of light, in your reference, time slows down. If you reach the speed of light, time stands still.

    What Einstein already figured out is what the post you replied to is alluding to. For a photon, all time is now. To the photons reaching us from this event, it is exactly the same time as when they were created. To a photon, no time passes between when it is emitted and when it is absorbed. This is one of the most spectacular implications of relativity.

    Q: What is a photon's favorite song?

    A: The Smiths; 'How Soon Is Now?"

    1. Re:What Einstein figured out... by thrich81 · · Score: 2

      "What Einstein already figured out is that as you approach the speed of light, in your reference, time slows down" -- this is not quite correct. Time is as measured by an observer and the clocks in his co-moving reference frame ( let's stay with Special Relativity to avoid the complications of curved space-time). When the observer looks at any processes in a reference frame moving in relation to his, he sees those other clocks as running slow, BUT another observer in the other reference frame sees the original observer's clocks as running slow, too. Nobody sees their own clocks as running slow. The apparent paradox is resolved by remembering that the two observers don't measure the same distances either. The good example is the muons generated by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere which are seen at the earth's surface, even though their rest frame half lives are too short for them to survive all the way to the surface. As observed by us at the surface the muon half-lives have been lengthened, their time has "slowed down", but as seen by the muon, it's half life is always the same, but because of the relative speed between it and the earth, it observes that the distance from creation to the surface is relativistically shortened so it has plenty of time before decay to travel that short distance. I don't want to speculate much about the photon traveling at the speed of light -- but to abuse the math -- they don't age as observed by anyone else, but any distance they go is relativistically shortened to zero from their reference -- I'm uneasy about that explanation.

    2. Re: What Einstein figured out... by ArylAkamov · · Score: 2

      We're at now-now.

      But what happened to then?

      We passed it

      When?

      Just now!

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=...

    3. Re:What Einstein figured out... by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      If the photons travelled from one place to another, and no time passed for them, then their speed=(distance/time) was . . . infinite? But there is a "speed of light". This seems contradictory.

    4. Re:What Einstein figured out... by Zak3056 · · Score: 2

      Q: What is a photon's favorite song?

      A: The Smiths; 'How Soon Is Now?"

      Werner von Heisenberg gets pulled over for speeding. The state trooper looks at him and says, "Dr. Heisenberg, do you have any idea how fast your were going?" Heisenberg says, "No, but I know exactly where I am."

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    5. Re:What Einstein figured out... by sh00z · · Score: 2

      What Einstein already figured out is that as you approach the speed of light, in your reference, time slows down. If you reach the speed of light, time stands still.

      What Einstein already figured out is what the post you replied to is alluding to. For a photon, all time is now. To the photons reaching us from this event, it is exactly the same time as when they were created. To a photon, no time passes between when it is emitted and when it is absorbed. This is one of the most spectacular implications of relativity.

      (giving up my mod points to comment here) That article drops its most significant qualifying phrase halfway through the explanation, which leads to a 100% incorrect conclusion. That phrase is relative to an observer back on Earth. In Earth's frame of reference, the time experienced by the photon is zero. In the photon's frame of reference, time is proceeding normally. It "sees" that the distance to its origin is zero at time zero, and that the origin is receding at a speed of c as time passes. And that time passes normally. Of course, the theory then goes into the actual weirdness of relativity, which is that in the photon's frame of reference, time has stopped at its origin.

  12. 2022? by OhSoLaMeow · · Score: 1

    Meh, I just saw Glenn Close crash the other night.

    --
    They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
  13. Re:"will collide in 2022" by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    You must be a hit at parties.

    Look, it's not a lecture to an audience of astronomers. They went with the simplest description that would be understood by the most people. And that includes you, because you know what they meant. We all do.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  14. Re:That's very bright! by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nice try at being pedantic, but you failed.

    -fold: a native English suffix meaning “of so many parts,” or denoting multiplication by the number indicated by the stem or word to which the suffix is attached

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  15. Re:"will collide in 2022" by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

    I demand precision to the nearest day!

    Okay. 655671 days.

    Note that the above number is precise, but not necessarily accurate. There IS a difference....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  16. Re:We just came close by bobbied · · Score: 1

    That was a close shave!

    What? Not that space rock, my face with that new blade..

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  17. Maybe It's a Celebration by Barton_ECC · · Score: 1

    So, basically, a question: did something happen in AD 222 (or so) to celebrate the end of Trumpdom?

  18. Re:"will collide in 2022" by Fragnet · · Score: 1

    That is genuinely fascinating.

  19. Re:We just came close by PPH · · Score: 1

    Burma Shave.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  20. If they had said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    it would happen in 2112, and worked in the name Rocinante somehow - I might pay more attention.

  21. I'll look for it ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... on Russian dash cam videos.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  22. Re:Three wise men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Forsooth, you have gotten it right! The apostle John (Smith's) TARDIS mis-translated "The Trump/Pence and alpaca lips" into "The trumpets of the apocalypse."

  23. Re: "will collide in 2022" by sanjed · · Score: 1

    Agnes Nutter would agree

  24. How bright will it be? by blackanvil · · Score: 1

    So, it's 1800 light years away, not exactly a close neighbor, but it will be an extraordinarily energetic event, no? So how bright is it expected to be -- just another dot in the sky, or are we talking Biblical night-into-day territory? Thanks.

    1. Re:How bright will it be? by lobiusmoop · · Score: 1

      Come to that will it also create a potentially nasty gamma-ray burst along with the extra visible light?

      --
      "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    2. Re:How bright will it be? by tinkerton · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It will temporarily be about as bright as Polaris, the Pole Star. So visible to the naked eye, but not one of the brightest ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... )

    3. Re:How bright will it be? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      No.

      To generate gamma rays you need far more compact objects than star cores.

      I'm still trying to find the original work (the links so far are to a poster or presentation at an astronomical conference - so this is pretty fresh work) which should have the individual star's mass estimates, to estimate the effects on any planets in the system. I doubt they'd be destroyed (and there's no reason to expect them to be appreciably gravitationally disturbed - because nothing significant would change), but the larger merged star would be brighter than the two pre-merger stars added together, so you'd expect climatic effects.

      I just checked my Mass-Luminosity toolkit. It's not going to be good. Say that the two progenitor stars total 2 solar masses : if they're the same (approximate) mass, then you'll go from 2*1.0 solar luminosity to 1*16 solar luminosity - a 16-fold brightening. If there's a 10:1 mass ratio (1.8 plus 0.2 solar masses), the luminosity change will be from 9.4+0.006 solar luminosity to 16 solar luminosity - a 1.7 fold brightening. That's after the transient brightening of the interaction settles down. If this was my sun, I'd be a very worried RockDoctor.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  25. Ultra mega pedant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When that collision happened, they weren't 1800 light years away, since the universe expanded over that time, so we should use THAT measure!

    For bonus points, you have to ask "And we don't know within 10 years when that happened, so we can't say what DAY it happened on, can we!??!

    Which is 100% why we put when it happens in OUR FRAME OF REFERENCE. Because, like it or not, we're here in this frame of reference.

  26. Re:Three wise men by bmxeroh · · Score: 1

    That all seems so overly complicated and also completely ridiculous.

    --
    Central Ohio Home Theater Installation - The Theater People
  27. Christ by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Between pedantic jackasses and failed comedians, the comments on /. have gone seriously downhill of late. Time to reevaluate the modding system?

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  28. Re:"will collide in 2022" by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    I demand precision to the nearest day!

    It was a Tuesday.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  29. Re:That's very bright! by jsrjsr · · Score: 2

    Many.

  30. Re:That's very bright! by Maritz · · Score: 1

    Maybe you mean "increase its brightness by a factor of ten thousand" or "ten thousand times" instead of "ten thousand fold"?

    Not sure if your intent was to seem clever but I think you achieved the opposite.

    Fold in this context doesn't mean what you think it means.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.